Both still unsold and unless they're prepared to accept DSS as rentals, no hope of ANY return or even cover for maintenance, so it looks as if the village is going to have its problems increased by two more problem families on DSS moved here by an out-of-local-council area housing association.

They could sell at a lower price, or rent out at a lower price.
No one has a right to sell or rent at break even plus costs do they.

Absolutely - we accepted quite a significant 'loss' on a property we had bought from a developer but only after I had negotiated a slightly bigger reduction in the cost of the ground we were buying. Net result we were no worse off financially. It is however very frustrating for those selling when the local market has been skewed by a big developer oversupplying the market place.

I do like the idea of £1 schemes to bring back empty LA properties back into use. I would have thought it easy enough for protections to be put in place to prevent 'profiteering' - financial clawback on sale value if subsequently sold on, restrictions or bans on letting etc.

The "£1 scheme" included a £30,000 mortgage guarantee, I believe, and they were pretty careful about who they let buy the houses. IIRC the scheme was over-subscribed by a fair margin. I don't know whether or not it has had the desired effect of bringing a "dead" area back to life or not.

I believe that LAs have the power to compulsorily purchase privately owned houses that have been empty for a long time. I think the big problem with that is that few LAs have the money to do it.

How do you sell a house when no one even makes an inquiry to view it? Both properties were gradually reduced in asking price to a point that would just cover the outstanding mortgage. I found out at a meeting to address this problem last week that several local properties are now in the ownership of out-of-area housing associations. I only found out the full financial implications because I was able to talk to relatives of the vendors who still live locally, the vendors being local-born people 'forced' to move on for economic reasons. There was nothing trivial in the circumstances, we're talking people who had just tried to do the best for their families and then found themselves stuffed by circumstances beyond their control. Rather than just sit back and give in to those circumstances, they took Norman Tebbitt's advice and got on their bikes - only to find that someone had let the air out of their tyres.

These are people already up against it and without any slack in their lives to allow them to take any loss, let alone a significant one.

As a local county councillor I'm in a privileged position that gives me access to information I wouldn't otherwise be privy to. At least once a week I find myself torn between anguish and anger at what some people are being forced into. It's no consolation to be offered a shoulder to cry on.

How do you sell a house when no one even makes an inquiry to view it? Both properties were gradually reduced in asking price to a point that would just cover the outstanding mortgage. I found out at a meeting to address this problem last week that several local properties are now in the ownership of out-of-area housing associations. I only found out the full financial implications because I was able to talk to relatives of the vendors who still live locally, the vendors being local-born people 'forced' to move on for economic reasons. There was nothing trivial in the circumstances, we're talking people who had just tried to do the best for their families and then found themselves stuffed by circumstances beyond their control. Rather than just sit back and give in to those circumstances, they took Norman Tebbitt's advice and got on their bikes - only to find that someone had let the air out of their tyres.

These are people already up against it and without any slack in their lives to allow them to take any loss, let alone a significant one.

As a local county councillor I'm in a privileged position that gives me access to information I wouldn't otherwise be privy to. At least once a week I find myself torn between anguish and anger at what some people are being forced into. It's no consolation to be offered a shoulder to cry on.

It might well be a very sad and sorry tale at the sharp end, but it is a competitive market at work.

If these houses aren't selling, then they are too expensive for the local market. That may well mean that the owners have to take a big financial hit, but that is the price we pay if we don't want the state to sponsor social housing to the degree it used to. Voters have spoken and elected a government of a flavour that has systematically dismantled the public sector rented homes sector for decades, starting with the "right to buy". At the same time, developers are being forced to provide a fair percentage of "affordable homes" in any development, as a planning condition. The price of homes in the "affordable" sector is static, or may even have dropped, over the past couple of years, with an impact on anyone who may be trying to sell a house that is competing in the marketplace with these low price new homes. Add in that the government have added a big bias in favour of anyone buying a new, rather than existing, house, in the form of the "help to buy" scheme and its clear just why some older homes aren't worth what they once were.

FWIW, I took a big financial hit back in 1992, when I was, effectively, being made redundant, because the place I was working at in Cornwall was closing. By luck I managed to find myself another job, but it meant moving to Scotland, quite an upheaval. We had paid £90,000 for our two bedroom cottage in Cornwall in 1987. It took 9 months to sell in 1992 and we sold it in the end for £59,000. We had no other option than to go from having a 40% mortgage to having a 90% mortgage, just because of a general crash in house prices. It added around 10 years on to my planned "mortgage free" date, together with tens of thousands of pounds in additional interest payments. It's just life, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Been there (as have many) and it's not a nice position to be in. As I said in my last post, we accepted a 'loss' but only because we reflected that 'loss' in what we purchased next. I didn't like the thought of losing tens of thousands off the value of the house we were selling, but accepted it because it allowed us to move on and negotiate a lower price for the plot of ground we built our last house on.

Comes back to the local oversupply caused by the big development you refer to, and house buyers being seduced by the glossy brochures, supposed lifestyle and bling that developers portray their houses as having, and of course the incentives referred to by Jeremy. Very difficult to counter that other than by further reducing prices such that you tempt buyers through the door.

Granddaughter and fiance bought their small (new build) house with the 'help to buy' scheme. They could have bought slightly cheaper with an older house, but of course the scheme then didn't apply and they couldn't get a mortgage.

I dreaded to think how they would have been fixed if interest rates hadn't stayed fixed at the current low rate. Luckily, she found a better paid job in the interim and her fiance was promoted within his company (he's a trainee solicitor), so their future looks more secure.

An old friend is still trying to sell the cottage she bought several years ago for £145,000. She's lowered the price to £123,000 and prepared to accept £120,000. She is now having to accept that the "lovely, remote place on the side of a hill with fantastic views" wasn't such a good idea since she developed arthritis and now finds it difficult to drive the Land Rover needed to access the property along a very rough track that is impassable after a fall of snow. I did warn her against buying it in the first place because I foresaw the horrendous problems accessing the place in my Transit when she asked me to do all the renovation work for her. She didn't think she'd have a problem selling it because of the views and, anyway, "everyone drives 4x4s nowadays, don't they?" Nope.

Times change, as do the ideals and aspirations of society. When I was growing up I had a fair few friends who lived on a big "council estate" and they had no aspirations to own a house, any more than their parents did. The very thought of being in debt to the extent needed to buy a house was a complete anathema to a class in society that viewed anything other than cash with deep suspicion and liked living in a close-knit community, where they all looked out for each other.

All that changed gradually, as society evolved and anyone renting was seen to be of a lower status in society and almost pitied because they clearly weren't competent enough to aspire to home ownership. I've never been convinced that our government should encourage home ownership, as all it does is reinforce the view that those renting are somehow of a lower status. There's nothing at all wrong with renting, and I know quite a few people who far prefer to rent than to buy. Quite apart from anything else, for those on a low or variable income renting is a lower risk than buying, given the volatility we have had in interest rates in the past.

I can see nothing wrong with creating a large affordable rental sector, instead of encouraging an ever larger affordable home ownership sector.

I can't get my head around how the 'help to buy' scheme (especially as it doubles to 40% in February) is going to enable people to climb the ladder when the time comes? Surely the inflated price of new builds is going to bite buyers in the behind when they need an extra bedroom in 3-5 years time?

JS: How would the affordable rental sector be possible, given the link between house price and rent? Wouldn't you need to cool the housing market first as most landlords are profit-driven?

I can't get my head around how the 'help to buy' scheme (especially as it doubles to 40% in February) is going to enable people to climb the ladder when the time comes? Surely the inflated price of new builds is going to bite buyers in the behind when they need an extra bedroom in 3-5 years time?

JS: How would the affordable rental sector be possible, given the link between house price and rent? Wouldn't you need to cool the housing market first as most landlords are profit-driven?

Funnily enough I was thinking about this whilst driving through one of the big estates on my way over here this morning. The price gap between the tiny affordable homes and the next step up, the homes where a couple could realistically start a family, has got a lot bigger, and will continue to get bigger for as long as "affordable home" prices remain static, or decrease, whilst houses in the next rung up the ladder continue to increase in price.

Government meddling in a free market rarely works out well, or as the government intended when it set out to meddle. I fear that we will have a far greater problem in a few years with people stuck in small houses and unable to buy anything bigger.

If the government was to put the money it's spending on "help to buy" into the creation of more affordable rented housing, which is exactly what we did in the post-war years, then rents would be affordable. The key is to remove the profit element from social housing, which is exactly how council housing worked. Council estates were built to provide affordable rented homes, with no profit to the owners, they just covered their costs. It worked very well for over 20 years, until society changed and the government told us that we should all have a right to own a home.

Where I grew up there were big council estates in every village, and generally these were nice little communities, where people looked out for one another. I think the social housing model failed when housing densities increased and we started creating tower blocks. High density housing of this type destroys social cohesion and creates an environment where a small minority of criminal and social outcasts can dominate.

It doesn't help to insist that developers include social housing in the mix of a development either.

Since finding myself getting more involved in "community issues" the underlying snobbery between neighbours of different housing "status", superior-acting owner-occupier in a row of ex-council houses with renters either side, often takes me by surprise. Inverted snobbery is as bad: "Who do they think they are, it's just an ex-council house?"

A lot to be said for neighbours finding themselves in the same boat, even if it is stowage.

Funnily enough I was thinking about this whilst driving through one of the big estates on my way over here this morning. The price gap between the tiny affordable homes and the next step up, the homes where a couple could realistically start a family, has got a lot bigger, and will continue to get bigger for as long as "affordable home" prices remain static, or decrease, whilst houses in the next rung up the ladder continue to increase in price.

Eventually there will be no buyers for the next run up.
Now when that will be is, at present, unknown.

I still think that every person that wants to buy, regardless of their circumstances, should go to every estate agent in their town and say.
"I want to by a place like that and I have this much to spend"
Initially the estate agent will laugh.
But if enough people do it, the message will get through.